Posts Tagged ‘Barack Obama’

Citizens worry that separation of religion and government is for show

Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010

When I read the headline “Religious leaders worry that Obama’s faith council is for show” in The Washington Post this morning, I imagined the story might have something to do with how concerned people are that the faith council may not be able to convince Josh DuBois to rein in the activities of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Partnerships, an office with both a title and an agenda tweaked only slightly from the disastrous Bush Administration office of similar name.

Upon reading the full text, however, I discovered that the article’s focus was, instead, on those who think the faith-based partnership isn’t doing enough to entwine our domestic agenda and our country’s religious organizations.

Apparently, “critics” are concerned about the fact that the council hasn’t been allowed to weigh in on issues like religious hiring and abortion. They’d really like the council to be able to tackle those, because they want religious organizations that receive federal funding to be able to turn away job applicants on the basis of their religious beliefs, and because they want to influence the president’s reproductive health agenda with their religious views on abortion.

That’s all well and good, but the article all but skipped over the other half of the “critics,” whose concern stems from a very different point of view.

Faith plays a very important role in our country and is a large part of the diversity that makes us so unique, but it often plays a disproportionate role in public debate. People of faith have every right to speak out on the issues that are important to them, but a line is crossed when we put religious concerns about political issues before all else.

It may be impolitic to say so, but my concern with the role of faith in the Obama Administration is not whether or not faith leaders are being listened to. It’s the fact that the faith-based office is still operating under the rules of the Bush Administration, which are deeply flawed and of questionable constitutionality. We all need to keep in mind that, since the government accepts taxes from and represents every person in the country, whatever their beliefs, it is not free to create policies or pass laws that favor any one, or several, belief system or systems. That would be the establishment of religion, prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Which, guess what?, exists to protect religion as much as it does the government.

Prayer and the President

Wednesday, March 25th, 2009

Barack Obama, the only president to acknowledge ‘non-believers’ during his inaugural address, is himself a very religious individual. He has spoken freely about the role Christianity has played in his life, began his first day in office with a prayer service and is currently taking the unprecedented step of opening nearly every presidential event with invocations.

Therefore, it’s safe to assume that he’d be happy to hear about the Presidential Prayer Team, a group founded in 2000 that believes in the power of mass prayer and the Pauline direction to his disciple Timothy that followers pray for their leaders:

“First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.” (1 Timothy 2:1-2)

The roughly 500,000-member PPT was unsure how the end of George W. Bush’s presidency would affect the group, since his was the only presidency for which it had prayed. And so, the 25,000 members who left the organization were not much of a surprise. Much less expected was the 41,000 new members who joined after the election.

This jump in membership is a good reminder that people of faith fall on all ends of the political spectrum, but perhaps more significant are the people who pray for the president while disagreeing with his policies. It’s a great example of the way religion can bring this country together: though the participants’ specific sentiments and beliefs may differ, the broader goals are the same.

Obama the next ‘Scout-In-Chief?’

Wednesday, January 14th, 2009

Seeing as you found your way to the internet, I’m sure you know that Barack Obama will become President of the United States next Tuesday. But his electoral victory also puts him on track to lead another massive national organization: The Boy Scouts of America. Every president since William Taft has accepted the BSA’s honorary invitation, but there are growing questions about whether Obama should and/or will do so.

Among those voicing concerns are a group of non-theistic organizations who sent a letter to Obama imploring him to reject the title. They accuse the BSA of actively purging atheist and agnostic members and employees from the organization, and object to article IX, § 1, cl. 1 of the BSA bylaws, which states that “no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God.”

The BSA is indeed a private organization and has the backing of the Supreme Court to enact its discriminatory policies. That being said, Obama has the right (perhaps even the responsibility) to publicly frown upon an organization that not only bars boys on the basis of their beliefs about God, but also teaches those boys who do make the theological cut that there is something fundamentally ‘Un-American’ about atheists and agnostics.

I can understand Obama’s hesitancy to spend his political capital on a symbolic gesture when so many policy opportunities in the religious liberty arena need attention, but this is a chance to send a message: the religious beliefs of all Americans will be valued and respected in the new administration.  At the very least, if Mr. Obama does accept, he should use his honorary bully pulpit to try and bring “change we can believe in” to the Boy Scouts of America.

Election 2008: 25 miles down, 1.2 to go

Monday, November 3rd, 2008

As the International Herald Tribune’s Jeff Zeleny put it this morning, if this election were a marathon, we’d be at mile 25 now. Having run the 33rd annual Marine Corps Marathon last Sunday, I have to agree with him.

It’s at mile 25 where exhaustion falls by the wayside and every runners’ eyes are focused dead ahead, on a finish line they can’t quite see but know is coming fast. By mile 25, there are no more questions about whether or not you’ll finish; the questions now are how you’ll finish, how you’ll feel afterward and how you’ll handle the backlash.

A marathon is a pretty good metaphor for a presidential election, although in a marathon the distance between spectator and competitor is much less than in an election, and the sense of community among athletes is much stronger than that among competing politicians. But that sense of community – whether from athletes, spectators, candidates or voters – defines both the marathon and the election, and has a lot to do with how everyone feels at the end.

As far as the marathon goes, I was inspired and energized by the incredible sense of community that dominated the race course – both from my fellow runners and from the crowds of spectators. Runners cheered for each other and cracked jokes in passing. Marines kept us moving with drill sergeant-esque commands to suck it up and pick up the pace. And the spectators cheered for anyone with a name printed on their shirt, held out snacks, waved signs, shouted, clapped and rang cowbells throughout the entire course, bursting with enthusiasm whether they had been watching for 15 minutes or four hours.

Everyone out there, watching or running, was part of the same community. And the positive energy generated by the faith of that community in the athletes they were supporting was a powerful thing. I find myself thinking about it now, marveling at the force of all that hope and determination, and wondering what it could do on a national level.

The presidential candidates are rounding the last corner of mile 24 now and by tonight, making their last speeches, they’ll have passed the 25-mile mark and be pounding down the home stretch, teeth gritted in determination until the moment it becomes clear who will be the victor.

Since I’ve already finished my marathon, I’ve had more of a chance to look ahead than the candidates have lately, and I have a challenge for our next president, whether he turns out to be Barack Obama or John McCain:

Hold onto the sense of community that’s grown among your supporters, among the citizens of this country, during the campaign. It’s been a long one and we’re all tired of it, but we’re united in our desire to see a better, brighter future for America. Take that unity and hold it up for the country to see, make it clear that regardless of who any one person voted for, the next steps in American history are up to all of us. Foster that sense of community among the diverse voices that comprise the citizenship of our country – if you do, I believe that you’ll be able to accomplish more than any president in the last twenty years has dreamed possible.

Use the collective energy of that community to fix what’s broken: give children a positive public school experience, leaving squabbles over prayer and creationism out of the classroom and keeping personal faith at home for the betterment of their education. Gather that community around minority groups – the LGBT community, Muslim-Americans, Sikhs – who are too often the innocent victims of attackers who don’t understand them and only recognize them as different and therefore dangerous. Pit the enormity of that positive vibe against the negativity of the Religious Right’s extremist positions, and let’s see if we can’t overwhelm them in such a way that makes their self-absorbed, blind hatred obsolete.

I believe the American people have the power to accomplish all that and more and I challenge you, Mr. President, to harness it. The marathon’s almost over, but the real test of strength has yet to begin. I hope you have the guts to meet it head-on, and win.

Holy political pandering, Batman!

Thursday, October 30th, 2008

It’s the year 2012 and America has suffered four separate terrorist attacks since 2009. Pornography is flaunted in stores across the country, countless Christian businesses are forced into bankruptcy and Iran has launched a nuclear bomb that exploded in the heart of Tel Aviv. Why? All because Americans shunned the Lord on Election Day and voted for Barack Obama.

Don’t believe me? Just ask James Dobson. He recently released this letter written from the viewpoint of a hypothetical Christian in 2012 lamenting America’s demise. It is 16 pages of unadulterated fear-mongering meant solely to scare people into voting for John McCain. Dobson has yet again managed to drive the level of our political discourse to a depressingly low level.

Beyond being a blatant insult to voters, the letter hijacks religion and drags it along for Dobson’s ride through the mud. He makes nothing more than a token reference to the millions of evangelical Christians voting for Obama and leaves little doubt that any vote for the Democratic candidate is an affront to God.

(And how about not judging the next President of the United States before we even know who he is?)

I like to think I paid at least a decent amount of attention in history class, but maybe I missed the section on America’s transition from democracy to theocracy. Can someone get me up to speed?

A Good Month for Religious Pluralism, but Not Great

Wednesday, October 22nd, 2008

The following is cross-posted at BeliefNet’s Progressive Revival.

October has been a good month for religious pluralism in America. Not great, but good. This past Sunday on Meet the Press former Secretary of State Collin Powell condemned the religious bigotry that has emerged during the campaign, saying:

“I’m also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, ‘Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.’ Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he’s a Christian.  He’s always been a Christian.  But the really right answer is, what if he is?  Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer’s no, that’s not America.”

Congratulations to Secretary Powell for his willingness to challenge those on the right who use the Muslim community as their punching bag, and to those on the left who seem less than enthusiastic about speaking in their defense.

Thankfully, Secretary Powell is not alone. His comments echo a commentary CNN anchor Campbell Brown delivered on her program earlier this month entitled “So what if Obama were a Muslim or an Arab?” In it she asks:

“When did that become a disqualifier for higher office in our country? When did Arab and Muslim become dirty words? The equivalent of dishonorable or radical?”

Alongside these great statements by Powell and Campbell is the continued distribution of 28 million copies of the movie Obsession. This film, despite what its makers tell us, is a pervasive demonization of Islam.

I have been happy to see a broad range of people from across the religious and political spectrum speak out against both Obsession, and the false rumors about Senator Obama’s religious background. But, I remain concerned about the staggering number of people who are choosing to stay silent. Now is the time for all fair-minded, freedom-loving people to condemn the poisonous onslaught of religious prejudice.

Religious freedom is a founding principle of this nation. Basic to American identity as envisioned by our founders is every citizen modeling not merely tolerance, but respect and understanding. Right now it is particularly crucial that political leaders – on both sides of the isle – not only pay lip service to religious freedom, but embody it.

October has been a good month for religious pluralism in America. Not great, but good. What would make it better would be if a presidential candidate, asked about being a Muslim, were to respond by saying, “I am not a Muslim, but so many patriotic Americans are.” What would make it exemplary would be if a presidential candidate whose allies seek to use religion as a political weapon were to put a stop to such divisive tactics. What would make it terrific – and most patriotic –would be if faith were not a factor in presidential politics. Period.

McCain Rally Tainted by Politicized Prayer

Thursday, October 16th, 2008

The cover of The Economist a few months back featured Barack Obama and John McCain, deeming their candidacies, “America at its Best.” If only that were so in terms of religion and politics. Here’s the latest example of inappropriate campaigning.

According to the Los Angeles Times, an October 11th McCain rally began with Rev. Arnold Conrad’s invocation, which quickly devolved into an appeal for God to help McCain defeat Obama. The reverend simultaneously made McCain the candidate of God and showed a fundamental misunderstanding of world religions by warning that millions of people are praying to “Hindu, Buddha, Allah” that McCain loses. On the off chance that the reverend is reading this, allow me to help out: Buddhists do not consider Buddha to be a god and there is no deity in Hinduism named “Hindu.”

Rev. Conrad even managed to suggest that God’s reputation was at stake, to be determined by the election’s outcome.

This is a prime example of religion being hijacked for an inappropriate political purpose. I’m getting really tired of people trying to tell me which candidate, military campaign or piece of legislation has God’s backing. I’m tempted to send Rev. Conrad a copy of Huston Smith’s The World’s Religions, for the sake of his congregants and our national discourse.

Daily News

Tuesday, September 16th, 2008

Here’s your look at the headlines:

  • Oy Vey! You will never guess who Barack Obama has as relatives.  [Associated Press]
  • Speaking of Obama and Judaism, someone is organizing phone calls to Jewish voters in Florida smearing the Democratic nominee.  [Associated Press]
  • Speaking of smear campaigns, a new anti-Muslim film is causing controversy.  [Miami Herald]
  • Is Palin new face of Religious Right, or old? [Reuters]

Religion and politics news, smear-free we promise, brought to you by the Interfaith Alliance.

Daily News

Thursday, September 11th, 2008

In Today’s News:

“So y = r cubed over 3. And if you determine the rate of change in this curve correctly, I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised“… with religion and politics in today’s news, from Interfaith Alliance.

But they’re not part of “good public speaking” …

Monday, September 8th, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama may think he’s too cool for air quotes, but he could have used them on ABC’s This Week yesterday. In a conversation with George Stephanopoulos about rumors that Sen. Obama is Muslim, an inelegant phrase unwittingly gave ammo to the Democratic candidate’s opponents.

Think about the difference between this:

Obama: You’re absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith …

and this:

Obama: You’re absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my “Muslim faith” …

Now, clearly part of Sen. Obama’s appeal is his skillful rhetoric, and he probably would never wiggle those fingers while he was talking for fear of being sent to bed without dinner by his coterie of media trainers.

Still, a little visual indicator of his true meaning might have stopped at least some of the endless e-mail rehashes of the YouTube video accompanied by breathless “OMG it’s proof of the cover-up!” messages that went around today.

And it bears repeating … What exactly is wrong with being a Muslim anyway? Nothing.

Blessed Ramadan to our Muslim friends who are fasting today and through the end of the month.

Listen Now